Training requirements for DXA technologists in the United States

Laura D. Carbone, Karen D. Barrow, Julie Vannerson, David Boatright, Catherine Womack

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to determine, by state, the requirements for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) operators' training, knowledge of these state requirements, and factors that predicted state and International Society of Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certification of DXA technologists. Seventeen states required registered technologist (RT) certification or authorized/licensed limited certification for DXA operators, 16 had no certification requirements, 12 required RT certification, and 5 had state-specific requirements. There were 9745 surveys mailed to DXA users including 50% Hologic Inc., 50% GE Lunar, and 100% Norland; 3148 surveys are included in this analysis. Among responders who indicated that their state did not have any certification requirements (n = 1673), 1095 (65.5%) were incorrect; there were requirements. Possession of state and ISCD certification was significantly correlated with the number of patients scanned per week (p ≤ 0.05), the number of technologists employed within a center (p < 0.01), and the subspecialty of the practitioner (p ≤ 0.02). Our study uncovered a lack of uniformity among states with respect to central DXA operator training requirements. Additionally, in those states with requirements, DXA operators were often unaware of these requirements. Uniform national training requirements for central DXA operators to ensure adequate DXA scan quality are urgently needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)251-260
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Clinical Densitometry
Volume8
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2005

Fingerprint

Photon Absorptiometry
Certification
Densitometry

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Training requirements for DXA technologists in the United States. / Carbone, Laura D.; Barrow, Karen D.; Vannerson, Julie; Boatright, David; Womack, Catherine.

In: Journal of Clinical Densitometry, Vol. 8, No. 3, 01.01.2005, p. 251-260.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carbone, Laura D. ; Barrow, Karen D. ; Vannerson, Julie ; Boatright, David ; Womack, Catherine. / Training requirements for DXA technologists in the United States. In: Journal of Clinical Densitometry. 2005 ; Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 251-260.
@article{cdd9b78e54404167a0f4077e0ee6fba0,
title = "Training requirements for DXA technologists in the United States",
abstract = "The purposes of this study were to determine, by state, the requirements for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) operators' training, knowledge of these state requirements, and factors that predicted state and International Society of Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certification of DXA technologists. Seventeen states required registered technologist (RT) certification or authorized/licensed limited certification for DXA operators, 16 had no certification requirements, 12 required RT certification, and 5 had state-specific requirements. There were 9745 surveys mailed to DXA users including 50{\%} Hologic Inc., 50{\%} GE Lunar, and 100{\%} Norland; 3148 surveys are included in this analysis. Among responders who indicated that their state did not have any certification requirements (n = 1673), 1095 (65.5{\%}) were incorrect; there were requirements. Possession of state and ISCD certification was significantly correlated with the number of patients scanned per week (p ≤ 0.05), the number of technologists employed within a center (p < 0.01), and the subspecialty of the practitioner (p ≤ 0.02). Our study uncovered a lack of uniformity among states with respect to central DXA operator training requirements. Additionally, in those states with requirements, DXA operators were often unaware of these requirements. Uniform national training requirements for central DXA operators to ensure adequate DXA scan quality are urgently needed.",
author = "Carbone, {Laura D.} and Barrow, {Karen D.} and Julie Vannerson and David Boatright and Catherine Womack",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1385/JCD:8:3:251",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "251--260",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Densitometry",
issn = "1094-6950",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Training requirements for DXA technologists in the United States

AU - Carbone, Laura D.

AU - Barrow, Karen D.

AU - Vannerson, Julie

AU - Boatright, David

AU - Womack, Catherine

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - The purposes of this study were to determine, by state, the requirements for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) operators' training, knowledge of these state requirements, and factors that predicted state and International Society of Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certification of DXA technologists. Seventeen states required registered technologist (RT) certification or authorized/licensed limited certification for DXA operators, 16 had no certification requirements, 12 required RT certification, and 5 had state-specific requirements. There were 9745 surveys mailed to DXA users including 50% Hologic Inc., 50% GE Lunar, and 100% Norland; 3148 surveys are included in this analysis. Among responders who indicated that their state did not have any certification requirements (n = 1673), 1095 (65.5%) were incorrect; there were requirements. Possession of state and ISCD certification was significantly correlated with the number of patients scanned per week (p ≤ 0.05), the number of technologists employed within a center (p < 0.01), and the subspecialty of the practitioner (p ≤ 0.02). Our study uncovered a lack of uniformity among states with respect to central DXA operator training requirements. Additionally, in those states with requirements, DXA operators were often unaware of these requirements. Uniform national training requirements for central DXA operators to ensure adequate DXA scan quality are urgently needed.

AB - The purposes of this study were to determine, by state, the requirements for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) operators' training, knowledge of these state requirements, and factors that predicted state and International Society of Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certification of DXA technologists. Seventeen states required registered technologist (RT) certification or authorized/licensed limited certification for DXA operators, 16 had no certification requirements, 12 required RT certification, and 5 had state-specific requirements. There were 9745 surveys mailed to DXA users including 50% Hologic Inc., 50% GE Lunar, and 100% Norland; 3148 surveys are included in this analysis. Among responders who indicated that their state did not have any certification requirements (n = 1673), 1095 (65.5%) were incorrect; there were requirements. Possession of state and ISCD certification was significantly correlated with the number of patients scanned per week (p ≤ 0.05), the number of technologists employed within a center (p < 0.01), and the subspecialty of the practitioner (p ≤ 0.02). Our study uncovered a lack of uniformity among states with respect to central DXA operator training requirements. Additionally, in those states with requirements, DXA operators were often unaware of these requirements. Uniform national training requirements for central DXA operators to ensure adequate DXA scan quality are urgently needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=23444451600&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=23444451600&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1385/JCD:8:3:251

DO - 10.1385/JCD:8:3:251

M3 - Article

C2 - 16055953

AN - SCOPUS:23444451600

VL - 8

SP - 251

EP - 260

JO - Journal of Clinical Densitometry

JF - Journal of Clinical Densitometry

SN - 1094-6950

IS - 3

ER -